DisplayPort: A Better Video Interface
DisplayPort: A Better Video Interface
Over the years, we’ve seen a good number of interfaces used for computer monitors, TVs, LCD panels and other all-things-display purposes. We’ve lived through VGA and the large variety o…
The short answer is HDMI was mainly developed by a consortium of Stereo and Television manufacturers whereas DisplayPort was firmly always developed as a modern replacement for VGA.
Somehow, I trust the people in the computer industry to make better and more strict standards than I expect from the audio/visual industry. There's a lot more advertising fluff from those groups while PC stuff can generally be nailed down by checking benchmarks against each other. How would you even benchmark two different stereo systems? (If I'm wrong and there is a way to benchmark them, cool, please share!)
Anyway, yeah, HDMI was for "Home Theaters" and pushed by the industry that builds that kind of thing and DisplayPort is for computers, period.
I used to think DisplayPort was the future, about 10-13 years ago.
By now I feel it has come and gone.
HDMI 2.1+ is making its way in everywhere.
- It’s a better plug.
- It tends to support enough pixels/Hz for most people.
- It’s more ubiquitous, being on both TV’s laptops, and monitors.
Pretty sure the PC desktop segment will keep the port alive for a while, but right now it doesn’t seem like a very useful port apart from having a plug that claws itself in place and is often unnecessarily hard to unplug.
With Ultra High Speed HDMI (these names are ridiculous, seriously, look at the standard names) there’s very few, if any, reasons to use DP, apart from compliant HDMI cables costing an arm and a leg.
To be honest I’m struggling a bit to understand why it’s not just all pushed through a CAT6/7 Ethernet cable at this point.
DisplayPort is a better system than HDMI. It even can ride piggy back on USB-C, which means a display can both power a computer on the same line as it connects to a laptop with. DisplayPort also supports daisy chaining(although it's not a common feature on monitors), so you could potentially have a single USB-C cable going to a laptop and then have multiple monitors connected with needing a dock or anything of that sort.
Just because it's more ubiquitous doesn't make it a better plug.
DP 2.1 is technically superior to HDMI in many ways, especially since it's the protocol that runs through USB C and supports daisy chaining, unlike HDMI which has to be converted to and from DP to be passed through USB C.
I don't see your argument with "it's a better plug" either, the DisplayPort connector is available as a locking or non-locking connector, is keyed better than HDMI and in my experience is more solid.
The only reason HDMI is as common as it is is because there's a consortium putting money into it to keep it popular because they can charge license fees from manufacturers. DP is free to use and developed by VESA, the standard can be downloaded directly from their website and added to whatever device you're developing with no need to license. HDMI charges licensing fees PER PORT, which is why you often see GPUs with one HDMI and three DPs.
TL;DR: HDMI is only more common because a group has in its best financial interests to keep it popular, despite it playing catch-up with DP.
Anyway, yeah, HDMI was for “Home Theaters” and pushed by the industry that builds that kind of thing and DisplayPort is for computers, period.
Their featuresets reflect this well. It's hard to declare one better than the other, because that depends entirely on the application. Some people think they would like a displayport-based home theater setup, but they don't realize how many features HDMI has that they unknowingly rely on like auto lipsync, eARC, CEC, etc.
For speakers and headphones you can measure frequency response. But this is less fun than having a person listen and describe the sound with weird adjectives.
Prepare thine cochlear senses, oh noble audiophiles, for I've stumbled upon a sonorous marvel that'll make your eardrums jitterbug like caffeinated squirrels at a techno rave. Upon placing these auditory gems upon your cranium, it's as if you're spelunking through the caverns of sound, where the bass is so profound that it feels like a cosmic beluga whale serenading a black hole.
this one sounds like silver monster cable.
this other one sounds like a straightened clothes hanger.(they both sound the same)
The video industry is perfectly capable of good standards. SDI, for example, was invented in 1989 and it's still the best way to transmit video today. DisplayPort has advantages, but it's worse than SDI in most ways.
but it’s worse than SDI in most ways
ima need you to expand on that one a bit because from what my amateurish search brought up SDI is pretty much garbage spec wise compared to DP
Now, if only it were an actual open standard, rather than requiring membership to get the spec.
A good article, a lot of those advantages I wasn't aware of! I think DisplayPort unfairly got a bad rap as "oh, I have to buy another cable now" when it was new, but it's obviously the better choice now. Although I still hate DisplayPort's latching, makes it so hard to unplug cables in tight spaces. I'd rather old-style screws than the latch on all the DP cables I've used.
Although I still hate DisplayPort's latching, makes it so hard to unplug cables in tight spaces
As a counterpoint to this, I've had GPUs with "tired" HDMI ports in tight spaces. They wiggle ever so slightly, and unplug themselves by half a millimeter. Suddenly, a monitor or AVR will stop working, but it might not be obvious if you are watching TV through a PC. (For example, HDMI connections: PC (Unplugged) -> AVR -> TV (HDMI passthrough).
The locking connector means you don't get those annoying issues where the TV looks like it's having issues, but it's actually due to a loose cable on the PC - AVR connection. Lots of troubleshooting sometimes.
If you do hate the latches, they make flat ones too
The only thing I wish DP would have is the ability to transmit audio together with video. It's more convenient needing only 1 cable to connect a laptop to a TV to watch movies. Also, because TVs only have HDMI, I used to run a DP>HDMI cable then connect the laptop separately (via aux or bluetooth) to the soundbar.
DisplayPort supports audio, implementation is based on manufacturer.
I just searched around because I was very confused at first because I'm using DP and getting audio through it...
I just searched around because I was very confused at first because I’m using DP and getting audio through it…
Yes, it's even called out in the article. The AUX channel can carry audio. No extra wires required. Maybe some manufacturers haven't implemented it?
I've literally just realised that I'm doing it too. I bought a pair of matching monitors, set them up, then checked that the display and sound was working. It didn't even cross my mind that they use DisplayPort. If you'd asked me five minutes ago, I probably would have said that they don't carry sound >.<
I prefer HDMI because it's simple and it just works. When I plugged my current monitor in via DisplayPort, if the PC was sleeping, the monitor would wake up every two minutes or so, look for a signal, then go back to sleep. Very annoying. I figured this was some poor implementation in the drivers (linux). Regardless, when I got rid of the DP cable and connected via an HDMI cable, everything worked fine. I'm not a gamer, btw.
That kinda sounds like a bad cable. I've had the same issue with both HDMI and DP before and it was solved with a new cable both times 🙂 Display cables are quite hit and miss when it comes to quality.
I prefer HDMI because it’s simple and it just works.
I disagree with this. if you use an older HDMI cable features introduced in newer HDMI versions might not work. DP cables work in any version.
@TheBaldness @ono On my current monitor I have got 50Hz with 3440x1440 with HDMI and 100Hz in the same resolution with Displayport. Guess what I'm using 😁
Sad Betamax noises
Not sure pricing now but historically HDMI was a lot cheaper so if you do not need it why pay for it. Typically it was on enterprise devices not consumer. Heck I am still using DVI on my workstation and KVM switch . Works fine and cheaper.
I'm using an HDMI KVM and using several adapters because one of my two monitors only supports DVI and the 3080 only has a single HDMI slot and 3 DP, so the image quality must be trash lmao. In the impossible future I might update the screens, the KVM, and then but more adapters because the usbc adapter of the laptop has no DP connections, and dp->hdmi adapters are cheaper than a usbc extension with multiple connectors, those are expensive.
Totally not looking forward to spending 500+ on two new monitors, the KVM and all the cables, while having to think that to do with the old cables so my partner doesn't kill me :_)
DVI and HDMI are actually the same video signal. Which is why adapters are so cheap.
DP can carry an HDMI encoded signal (and thus a DVI signal), which is why DP->HDMI and DP->DVI adapters are so cheap. It's called DP Dual Mode or Multi Mode or something like that.
I haven't encountered a device that outputs DisplayPort that cannot output the Dual Mode HDMI encoded signal as well.HDMI/DVI->DP is an active conversion - ie it is re-encoding it. Which is why the converters are significantly more expensive.
However, it's all digital. If the signal quality degrades, it will be very obvious because it stops working (sparkles on a black screen, lines, flashes, all sorts).
KVM switchs in particular are expensive and not all work well so it can be hit or miss. I will update mine at some point and move past DVI. To what who knows.